Email

The writer, a former ambassador, is adjunct faculty Georgetown University and Maxwell School of Syracuse University.

PUBLIC criticism of Pakistan in the US has become muted. And there was no mention of Pakistan in Donald Trump’s State of the Union message. But that does not mean bilateral tensions have eased, especially as the recent terrorist incidents in Afghanistan are likely to refocus attention on Pakistan and raise questions about the Trump strategy.

President Trump’s New Year Day tweet and his subsequent decision to suspend nearly $2 billion in US security assistance had rested on many faulty assumptions, about the history of US-Pakistan relations, the internal dynamics of Afghanistan, and the complexities of the war. Mr Trump said what many critics of Pakistan, in the military, Congress, intelligence organisations, and the strategic community, had been saying for some time though less offensively.

At the heart of this flawed view by the US leadership and the foreign and defence policy establishment are the systemic issues in the making of American foreign policy, and the constant challenge of reconciling politics and policy. There is not much Pakistan can do to understand the system. But we should at least try to understand why it is that Washington thinks Pakistan was cooperating with it only for aid and its withdrawal could force a policy change.

This US is looking to punish Pakistan while still engaged with it.

The central problem with the Pak-US relationship is that it has always lacked a strategic consensus. Each side was using the other to advance interests of its own that impacted negatively on the interests of its partner. Both benefited from their alliance but not without a cost. There being no strategic reason for a long-term commitment to Pakistan, the US exited as soon as the need for Pakistan was met, and punished it for policies that went against US interests. Pressler sanctions are a case in point.

The trouble is that the Pakistani leadership never really tried to understand American policies nor did it define or frame the relationship in the larger interest of the country, certainly not since the days of Ayub Khan which is the last time Washington actually helped Pakistan. Subsequent leadership, civilians and military alike, got addicted to the relationship for reasons of aid and their political survival to the point of the country’s interests being sacrificed. Washington knew and exploited it.

Much damage was done during the time of presidents Zia and Musharraf. Zia was desperate for Washington’s embrace as he needed legitimacy and economic aid, and his constituency, the army, sought military assistance. The US connection ended up fulfilling exactly the objectives he had in mind. After a decade of isolation, sanctions and threats, Washington returned to Pakistan in 2001. It made a correct assessment that Pakistan’s leadership, isolated and lacking legitimacy like Zia before, would be keen to get aligned with the US for the rewards that come with it. And Pakistan was shortchanged yet again.

In time, the Pakistani leadership too came to play the same game with Washington. That is why not long after their post 9/11 re-engagement the relationship started fraying as the attempts by the two sides to take advantage of each other made it difficult even for the transactional relationship to work.

Unlike the previous engagements when at least one interest or another of each side was being served while they lost in other areas, this time neither sides had satisfaction on any major count. Pakistan suffered horrendous damage from the spillover of the Afghanistan war, and the US thought its aid was not serving the purpose for which it was being given. So for the first time in the history of their ties, Washington was looking to punish Pakistan while still engaged with it. That is the central tension in the relationship now.

Pakistan should have levelled off with the Americans right from the start, laying down red lines on what it could do and what it would not, and tried to find convergence in interests and policies where it could. Instead, the leadership for the fear of losing aid apparently opted to misrepresent their policies and made promises they could not deliver. In the process Pakistan let all valuable cooperation it gave to the US and the sacrifices it made go unappreciated.

If the focus remains on aid, the bilateral conversation will continue to be to Pakistan’s disadvantage. Pakistan needs to isolate the aid factor from the dialogue. Then it can speak from a position of strength, with all the leverage on intelligence and security cooperation, ground and air lines of communication, and other support to the Afghan war effort. The aim should be to make ties interests-based not aid-driven. Is aid more important than national interests? Pakistan is getting there but not quite.

The writer, a former ambassador, is adjunct faculty Georgetown University and Maxwell School of Syracuse University.

Comments (31) Closed

May be I missed the main point but I could not see anything related to the title. However I found a simplistic view of the history of Pak-US relations.

Recommend0

Murtaza

Feb 06, 2018 10:38am

Splendidly written article. A true depiction of ground reality!

Recommend0

Arfeen Khan

Feb 06, 2018 10:44am

Very well written.....
I would say, the role of lobbying should have elaborated in the article. This part of politics play very impactful role I shaping up the opinion.

Recommend0

PrakashG

Feb 06, 2018 11:22am

The author forgets that besides US national interest and Pakistan national interest, there is a third interest at play here - and that is the institutional interest - which is causing all the friction.
At any given time, you can only align two of the three interests.

Recommend0

Fatima S.

Feb 06, 2018 11:30am

it is obviously not just a trump phenomenon. The whole concept of America is at odds with Pakistan- their culture, ethics, language and the American way of life is completely incompatible to Pakistanis. Such clash of civilizations is bound to happen.

Recommend0

Asif Bhatti

Feb 06, 2018 11:34am

Sir you will soon need to approach IMF and World Bank with a begging bowl and you have audacity to think that Pakistan can talk to US as an equal? Pakistan has been dependent all its life on US aid and other help. And here you are advocating that pakistan should show Red lines to US in its dealings. Please try to live in real world and not an illusion.

Recommend0

jimmy

Feb 06, 2018 12:20pm

Excellent analysis. "Both benefited from their alliance but not without a cost." Pakistan needs money for every thing either civilian or military purpose. How can Pakistan ignore aid ? Very difficult to understand. Is there any country can fill that gap, middle east rich countries or Iron brother China? It will take long time to build economy by that time other geopolitical and geoeconomical dimensions will also change.

Recommend0

NK

Feb 06, 2018 02:01pm

The writer is right if he understands that there is no linkage between :

i) Economic aid & grants by US and EU, US influence in IMF, World Bank, UN Bodies, etc. ; and
ii) Pakistan's foreign and domestic policies.

Realistically speaking, the economic position of the country may bend it more and more as China has never been following any policy of aid and grants or waiver of loans. Rather it is notorious for bartering land and access rights to economic infrastructure in lieu of unpaid loan carrying high interest cost. Latest example is Sri Lankan Port of Hambantola. Hence, the foreign policy in the days to come may be eclipsed by the worsening economic condition. The choice shall largely be either fulfilling US 'do more' or the 'demands from China' with known precedents.

Recommend0

Khawar Saleem Aslam

Feb 06, 2018 02:27pm

I think it is the right conclusion by the writer. Take out completely the aid factors and then discuss how best we can cooperate to mutual benefit. For that Pakistan needs to have continuity in its democratic process with a very strong input from armed forces. Need for the latter is primarily on account of historical conduct of our political parties.

Recommend0

Anand

Feb 06, 2018 02:57pm

Lets make Pakistan great again !

Recommend0

Himmat

Feb 06, 2018 05:36pm

@Fatima S. You nailed it. Correct analysis.

Recommend0

Abraham Haque

Feb 06, 2018 06:37pm

Sir there are those who have been saying these things for s long while

Recommend0

Veer

Feb 06, 2018 07:09pm

Pakistan has the best population, both well built and intelligent. Why it needs any help from anybody whether USA or China. Please change your hate policies and stand on your own feet. I want to see Pakistan as a peaceful and prosperous country.

Recommend0

Vijay

Feb 06, 2018 07:21pm

@Fatima S. Madam with all due respect when an immigrant goes to America or any other country it is his duty to assimilate with the host country. I have come across many immigrants in America who keep on telling how their culture is superior to the American culture. The fact is all the immigrants are in by choice nobody forced them to go to US.

Recommend0

Vijay

Feb 06, 2018 07:23pm

@SATT US is a superpower and as such it has no problems but smaller nations do.

Pakistan leaders should tell the world that Afganistan problem is due to poverty, corruption and cultural issues. Average pay of $300/week for fighting is the only option most poor Afghans have. Yes, Pakistan made some poor choices helping Afghans during their war agaisnt soviet Union . And Pakistan wish good luck to Trump in his Afgan war.

Recommend0

Khalid iqbal

Feb 06, 2018 10:39pm

Pakistanis the only country that has delivered to America
and is the only country that can do it again , the American
mliltary knows it but the White House is having a difficult time
Figuring it out , the faster and quicker it is understood , the faster the stalemate in Afghanistan can be resolved.

Recommend0

abrar shah

Feb 06, 2018 11:24pm

Right

Recommend0

Abdul Haseeb

Feb 07, 2018 01:27pm

very well written, agree with auther's point of view. we need to focus on national interest, not on US aid.

Recommend0

sourav ghosh

Feb 07, 2018 03:32pm

Sir, please acknowledge the use of non state actors and do something about them and everything will fall in place

Recommend0

A.M. Khawar

Feb 07, 2018 05:42pm

Good analysis with clarity and purpose.

Recommend0

Pathanoo

Feb 07, 2018 09:17pm

@SATT Donald trump just did. Didn't you notice?

Recommend0

Pathanoo

Feb 07, 2018 09:27pm

Mr. Ambassador, you are mssing the main point. Pakistan is so structurally different in every way from America that it can NOT have a true, mutually beneficial freindship with them.

Recommend0

Sheikh Sa'adi

Feb 07, 2018 11:04pm

@Fatima S.

The whole concept of America is at odds with Pakistan- their culture, ethics, language and the American way of life is completely incompatible to Pakistanis.Such clash of civilizations is bound to happen.

I guess the Chinese and Pakistanis have common "Culture, Ethics, Language and Way of Life".

If not, "Clash of Civilisations" is just around the corner.

Recommend0

Ajaya Dutt

Feb 08, 2018 01:39am

What a pity that a former ambassador can only see it as "At the heart of this flawed view by the US leadership and the foreign and defense policy establishment are the systemic issues in the making of American foreign policy"

Recommend0

Ashraf

Feb 08, 2018 03:10am

@Fatima S. Obviously no such clash with Indians who share the same civilization as Pakistanis. Security Establishment is responsible for this unfortunate break in a 70 year old relationship. I am sure the moderator will censor my comments. But still I have to try because I am a big fan of Dawn and Pakistanis.

Recommend0

schali

Feb 08, 2018 03:50am

@Arfeen Khan Lobbying works only for a short while. How long one can hide duplicity even with the best lobbying power?

Recommend0

Jalaluddin S. Hussain

Feb 08, 2018 04:13am

I agree with the following view of the writer, in the context of Pakistan:

"...leadership, civilians and military alike, got addicted to the relationship for reasons of aid and their political survival to the point of the country’s interests being sacrificed. Washington knew and exploited it."